Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:22:03.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parent-of-origin effects cause genetic variation in pig performance traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

N. Neugebauer ,
H. Luther  and
N. Reinsch
N. Neugebauer
Affiliation:
Forschungsinstitut für die Biologie landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere, FBN, Forschungsbereich Genetik und Biometrie, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
H. Luther
Affiliation:
SUISAG, AG für Dienstleistungen in der Schweineproduktion, Allmend, CH-6204 Sempach, Switzerland
N. Reinsch*
Affiliation:
Forschungsinstitut für die Biologie landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere, FBN, Forschungsbereich Genetik und Biometrie, Wilhelm-Stahl-Allee 2, 18196 Dummerstorf, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In order to assess the relative importance of genomic imprinting for the genetic variation of traits economically relevant for pork production, a data set containing 21 209 records from Large White pigs was analysed. A total of 33 traits for growth, carcass composition and meat quality were investigated. All traits were recorded between 1997 and 2006 at a test station in Switzerland and the pedigree included 15 747 ancestors. A model with two genetic effects for each animal was applied: the first corresponds to a paternal and the second to a maternal expression pattern of imprinted genes. The imprinting variance was estimated as the sum of both corresponding genetic variances per animal minus twice the covariance. The null hypothesis of no imprinting was tested by a restricted maximum likelihood ratio test with two degrees of freedom. Genomic imprinting significantly contributed to the genetic variance of 19 traits. The proportion of the total additive genetic variance that could be attributed to genomic imprinting was of the order between 5% and 19%.

Keywords

genomic imprinting, epigenetics, variance components, imprinting variance, carcass and growth traits in pigs
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 672 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cameron, ND 1990. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for carcass traits, meat and eating quality traits in pigs. Livestock Production Science 26, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassady, JP, Young, LD, Leymaster, KA 2002. Heterosis and recombination effects on pig growth and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2286–2302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Koning, DJ, Rattink, AP, Harlizius, B, van Arendonk, JAM, Brascamp, EW, Groenen, MAM 2000. Genome-wide scan for body composition in pigs reveals important role of imprinting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, 7947–7950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Koning, DJ, Rattink, AP, Harlizius, B, Groenen, MAM, Brascamp, EW, van Arendonk, JAM 2001a. Detection and characterization of quantitative trait loci for growth and reproduction traits in pigs. Livestock Production Science 72, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Koning, DJ, Harlizius, B, Rattink, AP, Groenen, MAM, Brascamp, EW, van Arendonk, JAM 2001b. Detection and characterization of quantitative trait loci for meat quality traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2812–2819.Google Scholar
De Vries, AG, Kerr, R, Tier, B, Long, T, Meuwissen, THE 1994. Gametic imprinting effects on rate and composition of pig growth. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 88, 1037–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enfield, FD, Whatley, JA Jr 1961. Heritability of carcass length, carcass backfat thickness and loin lean area in Swine. Journal of Animal Science 20, 631–634.Google Scholar
Engellandt, T, Tier, B 2002. Genetic variances due to imprinted genes in cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 119, 154–165.Google Scholar
Essl, A, Voith, K 2002. Genomic imprinting effects on dairy- and fitness-related traits in cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 119, 182–189.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Cullis, BR, Welham, SJ, Gogel, BJ, Thompson, R 2004. An efficient computing strategy for prediction in mixed linear models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 44, 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habier, D, Götz, KU, Dempfle, L 2007. Estimation of genetic parameters on test stations using purebred and crossbred progeny of sires of the Bavarian Piétrain. Livestock Science 107, 142–151.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, HU 2000. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs, 2. Genetic relationships between production, carcase and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, WG, Keightley, PD 1988. Interaction between molecular and quantitative genetics. In Advances in Animal Breeding (ed. S Korver, HAM van der Steen, JAM van Arendonk, H Bakker, EW Brascamp and J Dommerholt), pp. 41–55. Proceedings of the World Symposium in Honour of Professor RD Politiek, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 11–14 September 1988. PUDOC, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hovenier, R, Kanis, E, van Asseldonk, T, Westerink, NG 1992. Genetic parameters of pig meat quality traits in a halothane negative population. Livestock Production Science 32, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, J-T, Carlborg, Ö, Törnsten, A, Giuffra, E, Amarger, V, Chardon, P, Andersson-Eklund, L, Andersson, K, Hansson, I, Lundström, K, Andersson, L 1999. A paternally expressed QTL affecting skeletal and cardiac muscle mass in pigs maps to the IGF2 locus. Nature Genetics 21, 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadarmideen, HN, Schwörer, D, Ilahi, H, Malek, M, Hofer, A 2004. Genetics of osteochondral disease and its relationship with meat quality and quantity, growth, and feed conversion traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3118–3127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, P, Willam, A, Sölkner, J 1997. Genetic parameters for lean meat content and meat quality traits in different pig breeds. Livestock Production Science 52, 69–73.Google Scholar
Lo, LL, McLaren, DG, McKeith, FK, Fernando, RL, Novakofski, J 1992. Genetic analyses of growth, real-time ultrasound, carcass, and pork quality traits in Duroc and Landrace pigs: II. Heritabilities and correlations. Journal of Animal Science 70, 2387–2396.Google Scholar
Neugebauer, N, Räder, I, Schild, HJ, Zimmer, D, Reinsch, N 2009. Evidence for parent-of-origin effects on genetic variability for beef traits. Journal of Animal Science, 10.2527/jas.2009-2026.Google ScholarPubMed
Nezer, C, Moreau, L, Brouwers, B, Coppieters, W, Detilleux, J, Hanset, R, Karim, L, Kvasz, A, Leroy, P, Georges, M 1999. An imprinted QTL with major effect on muscle mass and fat deposition maps to the IGF2 locus in pigs. Nature Genetics 21, 155–156.Google Scholar
Quaas, RL, Pollak, EJ 1980. Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. Journal of Animal Science 51, 1277–1287.Google Scholar
Reinsch, N, Engellandt, T, Schild, HJ, Kalm, E 1999. Lack of evidence for bovine Y-chromosomal variation in beef traits. A Bayesian analysis of Simmental data. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 116, 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Self, SG, Liang, K 1987. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82, 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stella, A, Stalder, KJ, Saxton, AM, Boettcher, PJ 2003. Estimation of variances for gametic effects on litter size in Yorkshire and Landrace swine. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2171–2178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tholen, E, Jüngst, H, Schulze-Langenhorst, C, Schellander, K 2005. Genetic foundation of meat quality traits of station tested slaughter pigs in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Archiv für Tierzucht (Special Issue) 48, 123–130.Google Scholar
Van Laere, A-S, Nguyen, M, Braunschweig, M, Nezer, C, Colette, C, Moreau, L, Archibald, AL, Haley, CS, Buys, N, Tally, M, Andersson, G, Georges, M, Andersson, L 2003. A regulatory mutation in IGF2 causes a major QTL effect on muscle growth in the pig. Nature 425, 823–836.Google Scholar
Welham, SJ, Cullis, BR, Gogel, BJ, Gilmour, AR, Thompson, R 2004. Prediction in linear mixed models. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 46, 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar